Posted on 08/19/2006 3:56:52 AM PDT by DannyTN
Early Large Spiral Galaxy Resembles Milky Way 08/18/2006 
Astronomers using adaptive optics at the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Paranal, Chile took spectra of a galaxy at red-shift 2.38 described as an “early young galaxy” that must have, according to current theory, formed very rapidly, because it looks like the Milky Way. The observations by Genzel et al., published in Nature,1 were described by Robert C. Kennicutt (editor of Astrophysical Journal) in the same issue of Nature2 this way:
On page 786 of this issue1, Genzel et al. present remarkable observations of what appears to be a newly formed spiral galaxy, observed when the Universe was just a fifth of its current age. The result is doubly significant: first, it provides the most detailed glimpse so far of the formation of a galaxy similar to our own Milky Way; second, it demonstrates the power of a new generation of high-resolution instruments that use adaptive optics to study the information and evolution of far-off galaxies.Though Kennicutt claims that our growing catalog of deep-space observations have given rise to “a self-consistent picture of the evolution of galaxies,” he did find it remarkable that such a distant galaxy would look so familiar:
The authors’ observations of BzK-15504 reveal it to be a giant spiral galaxy, with a size and mass similar to that of the Milky Way, but observed just 3 billion years after the Big Bang. It shows many similarities to present-day spiral galaxies, with rotational properties that, again, are nearly identical to those of the Milky Way. These similarities are notable because they imply that at least some large disk galaxies were broadly in place even at these early cosmic epochs.He says that the spectra imply a rapid burst of star formation in this galaxy 50 times greater than that assumed in our own. The authors of the paper, after stating the “framework” of galaxy evolution, admitted to some anomalies in the picture:
It remains unclear, however, over what timescales galaxies were assembled and when and how bulges and disks—the primary components of present-day galaxies—were formed. It is also puzzling that the most massive galaxies were more abundant and were forming stars more rapidly at early epochs than expected from models.Everyone thought large spiral galaxies formed late in the evolution of the cosmos. Kennicut said, “large spiral galaxies with well-developed disks similar to the Milky Way are conspicuously absent in both observations and models of the early Universe. These large spirals are expected to form rather late, so one would not expect to find many of them at early times,” he added. But why there are any galaxies this large and mature at such an early age? “Both these and other results from the same programme are challenging theorists to account for the existence of such massive and well-formed galaxies at such early cosmic epochs, he added, changing the subject to the promise of adaptive optics to answer that question.
The juxtaposition of cockiness about their models and head-scratching about the particulars is what is puzzling. To keep the model together, they have to have this galaxy, which is surely representative of billions more, forming stars and evolving so rapidly that it looks mature at one-fifth the assumed age of the universe. This pattern of early maturity is the Cambrian Explosion of cosmology, also known as the Lumpiness Problem. The early universe shows much more structure (lumpiness) than expected from a nearly homogeneous expansion of an initially uniform particle soup (uniform, that is, to within one part in a hundred thousandth of a degree temperature of the cosmic background radiation). Astronomers seem to take their lumps in stride. Sometimes, however, discretion is the better part of valor.
Next headline on: Astronomy • Cosmology • Dating Methods
The term "evolutionist" normally refers to people who believe in biological evolution as originally put forth by Darwin and others. Just because someone uses the term evolution doesn't mean they are biological evolutionists.
I am not sure what you meant when you called him an evolutionist.
So someone who uses the term evolution to describe their belief that the universe evolved isn't an evolutionist? Okaaaay. Let me just ask you this...
Yes or no
Four yes's and your argument is trashed.
It might be a better term but the same people who buy long ages and evolution for the earth buy long ages and evolution for the universe. So I'm not wrong in calling them evolutionists. In fact, I'd dare say that the number of poeple who believe in a long age for the Universe and stellar evolution, but a short age for the earth, is relatively small.
"Oh, my, yes...."
I believe in Creation of the automobile. I'm a creationist.
Seriously, are you trying to make a case that there are a substantial number of people who believe in "stellar evolution" and long ages for the Universe but reject biological evolution? And in fact, the reverse must be true, for what I said to be wrong. There would have to be a large number of biological evolutionists that reject stellar evolution. And I seriously doubt there are any.
You're just playing with semantics now that you're trapped logically! (/cr-id)
No, not all creationists are young earth.
And you made a mistake. Why won't you admit it and move on?
Not all creationists are young earth, but my comment wasn't about creationists. I said "Evolutionists believe". Do you want to try to tell me that there are Evolutionists believe in a young Universe?
Believing in an old universe does not make one an evolutionist.
No it doesn't. But evolutionists' believe in an old universe right?
No it doesn't. But evolutionists' believe in an old universe right?
Ok, you have me there. Of course you had to change frames of reference to do it. But indeed, there are a lot of YEC who believe that multple frames of reference could explain how stars were created on the fourth day yet appear to be very old at least from a starlight distance calculation.
Therefore, I concede that I have no way of knowing if the original author who clearly believes in evolution of galaxies, believes in biological evolution. And therefore labeling him an "evolutionist" is misleading, as I agree that the term "evolutionist" is commonly related to biological and not stellar evolution.
No concession needed... just a misunderstanding, that's all. Hope you had a good weekend.
I'm a born again christian....and your remark is offensive sir.
I am also an amature astronomer...I find no biblical conflict with these findings
We are probably stuck with the multi-definitional use of the term forever. What we ought to do in such usage is limit the definition in each particular field of study, but many or most won't, which opens the possibility of metaevolution as a study of evolution of evolution.
So? This has nothing to do with the ToE.
I want to see proof that this isn't an image of our own Milky Way, visible to us through multi-gravitational lensings. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.